I've got a little pt and sht digital, of course. Piece of crap. One of the Panasonics that are rebadged as Leicas, but I didn't buy the Leica. OK camera but it has a spec of internal dust that, these cameras essentially being pinhole cameras, shows up on the image at times, especially when I zoom.

OK, I can deal with that...never zoom. It's mostly a grandkid shooter, and travel notebook, so what the heck, keep saying I should get a good one, keep delaying, even the $80 a small digi on a blister pack feels like too much.

OK ... so this weekend I was out at Bonneville Salt Flats shooting with that thing and my Leica CL, shooting Pan F in the Leica, but as I was shooting I noticed that at the end of a roll, or near it, I'd wind and the camera would feel funny and make a brrrrr type sound and feel rough and I went

"Hmmmm?"

So I got home and took the film out and looked and, silly thing, the drive gear, that toothy thingy, is broken. Unlike every other Leica on the planet, in which that thing is machined out of solid brass, this one is metal core with the teeth put on around it like a tire, made of plastic, and on one of the two toothy thingies (is there a name for those?) the tire had broken, there's a small little gap there, so the tire is not gripping the hub, and if you push it moves.

Hmmmmm.

So I pondered -- this is my favorite travel camera, it is also my first Leica. Get it serviced?

Wow. $200 for starters, plus parts, can you imagine what the part would cost? I can: A lot. Plus this camera has had 38 years of hard labor -- lots of wear, a coupla bumps, the odd ding, the usual.

So I looked at KEH, which had one in Exc on their ebay store (also on their listings, I suspect) for $430, shipping included.

Pondered for a whole five minutes and hit "buy."

So I guess what this says is I'd rather drop $430 on a real camera that will probably last another 38 years, than even 1/4th that much on a digital camera that will turn to crap overnight, practically.

I like to think this is a good thing.

Here's an image from the CL. Still works, but it's overlapping pics if it slips. Not good.

Don't worry. You're not the only one. If my Nikon F2 (I'm the original owner, from the early 70s) finally bit the dust, I'd be on KEH like lightening to find an identical model. That camera has become like an extension of my hand. Change even one millimeter on it and I would probably trip, fall, and crash and burn from the resulting instability.

A fun question I've asked others before: If you suddenly look up and find yourself being charged by a rhino... QUICK!... which way do you rotate the manual focus ring??

If the person answers only with words, that camera is not a hand-extension for them. But if they answer by first raising their hands to their face and pausing momentarily to see what their fingers tell them, you'll know you've found your answer.

Ken

"They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

— Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

Don't worry. You're not the only one. If my Nikon F2 (I'm the original owner, from the early 70s) finally bit the dust, I'd be on KEH like lightening to find an identical model. That camera has become like an extension of my hand.

Ken

I know the feeling. I bought my Canon F-1 in 1973. Forty years later and it still fits like a glove.

A fun question I've asked others before: If you suddenly look up and find yourself being charged by a rhino... QUICK!... which way do you rotate the manual focus ring??

This only works if you predominantly shoot Nikon, Ken. :-)

I shoot other cameras like Minoltas, Pentax, Leica, etc. and the switching back and forth usually has me cursing Nikon's "alternative" directions. The real answer is ill allow you to attempt focus while I shoot the rhino charging you.

That being said I love all my Nikon gear, of which I have more than any other manufacturer.

Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

I shoot other cameras like Minoltas, Pentax, Leica, etc. and the switching back and forth usually has me cursing Nikon's "alternative" directions.

Just to clarify, Pentax is the same as Nikon, both focus and f-stop. I started with Fujica ST (also the same), went to Nikon, then to Pentax, then to Bronica, (same, plus lenses mount the same direction as Nikon). I still have all four makes. After 39 years, I suppose I'd go nuts trying to adjust to a Canon, Minolta, etc, now.

I do have two lenses which focus opposite: a 17mm Tokina in Pentax mount (would it have killed them to have made reverse helicoids for their Pentax and Nikon mounts?), and a Tamron Adaptall 500mm mirror. I always start the wrong way and have to correct myself.

I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

See, you know the pain. We just focus and correct based on whatever camera is in our hands. I wish there were a standard for this. :-) I'd like to think PULL means bring it closer, and PUSH means move the focus further out. Since it's almost always left-hand driven for focus it doesn't seem like a de facto standard wasn't apparent somewhere in the last 100 years or so. I guess that depends on if one thinks their thumb is dominant or not. Don't get me wrong, I use Nikon stuff all the time and I'm a big proponent, but I think their focus direction choice is intuitively/kinesthetically backwards. That being said it's usually a localized adaptation thing - after a few shots one gets in the flow.